On October 3, 2001 10:34 am, sup sup wrote:
> http://www.w3.org/2001/07/SVG10-IPR-statements.html
>
> Apple, IBM, Eastman Kodak, Quark use RAND license in
> SVG 1.0 recommendation. Ignore SVGA until it's RAND
> clear.
>
> OK ?
I wish I could say that SVG is only a recommendation at this point, but
unfortunately, "recommendation" is the W3C word for "standard", just as RFC
is the IETF's word for standard.
SVG became a standard, i.e, "recommendation" in W3G terminology, just under
one month ago:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-SVG-20010904/
"W3C Recommendation 04 September 2001"
The public review period, if there ever was one, went by quietly:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/PR-SVG-20010719/
"On 19 July, 2001, this document enters a Proposed Recommendation review
period. From that date until 16 August, 2001, W3C Advisory Committee
representatives are encouraged to review this specification and return
comments to w3t-svg@w3.org, which is visible to the W3C Team only.
Interestingly, the timing of the SVG 1.0 release seems to be closely
correlated with the proposed change to W3C's patent policy currently being
discussed.
Returning to the SVG 1.0 recommendation document:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-SVG-20010904/
"W3C Recommendation 04 September 2001"
we see that the word "patent" occurs once in it, with a link to this document:
http://www.w3.org/2001/07/SVG10-IPR-statements.html
Now lets just focus on Apple, one of the companies listed as having disclosed
patent claims and license commitments connected with the SVG standard.
In the summary section we learn that:
Apple informed the SVG 1.0 Working Group very early in the SVG 1.0
process of the patent they listed in their license statement. The SVG
Working Group made a concerted effort to produce a specification that
does not require implementors to infringe the patent.
and later, this is elaborated:
Apple IPR Statement: 11 July 2001
Apple agrees to provide a RAND License (defined below) for
all Essential Claims (defined below) in U.S. Patent 5,379,129
to implementors of the SVG 1.0 Specification who grant a
reciprocal RAND License to Essential Claims for the SVG 1.0
Specification. Apple grants no license, either express or
implied, to any other patent, patent application, trade
secret or other intellectual property right. Apple expressly
reserves all rights in its intellectual property.
There follows a detailed, legalistic statement by Apple which, among other
things, defines the terms "Essential Claims" and "RAND License". As part of
the latter definition we see that, according to Apple:
A RAND License shall mean a license that:
(i) shall be available to all implementers worldwide,
whether or not W3C Members;
Unfortunately, the document that defines Apple's licensing terms is not
available to the public:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-svg-pag/2001Jul/0002.html
If you or I try to go there we will get a "Sorry, Unauthorized" message and
learn that we must be an member of the W3C to view the page, and that
individuals may not become members of the W3C.
So, the SVG standard was formalized and includes RAND licencing arrangements
even though RAND licencing was not an official W3C policy at the time.
Perhaps worse, the licensing arrangements have not been disclosed to the
public.
In my opinion we have a smoking gun. We can see that Apple has already
abused the concept of RAND licensing, even before the policy was formally
adopted, and that the W3C's now-formalized SVG standard ("recommendation")
has already been tainted by that. I will not try to be any more specific
about this, I've presented enough of the bits and pieces of the puzzle so
that you can form your own opinion.
Adobe was quick to act:
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Overview.htm8
"2001-Sep-27 Adobe released SVG Viewer 3.0 beta 3. Bugs should be
reported as the beta period is expected to be short."
The question that naturally arises is: even though Adobe was nowhwere
mentioned in the SVG documents, does Adobe somehow stand to benefit from
Apple's undisclosed RAND licensing terms? There is no smoking gun here, but
there is certainly smoke.
It is clear what we must do. We must fork the SVG standard; in its current
form it is unacceptable.
--
Daniel